| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,63 @@ |
|
1 |
+==Definitions== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+ |
|
6 |
+Value: Government Legitimacy, as achieved when the government protects the rights of citizens. |
|
7 |
+Criterion: Increasing Accountability |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+==Contention One: Qualified Immunity is excused ignorance for public officials. == |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+Armacost 98 { Barbara, Professor of Law at University of Virginia Qualified Immunity: Ignorance Excused, http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/hein/armacost/51vand_l_rev583_1998.pdf, pg 2} |
|
18 |
+In this Article, Professor Armacost uses fair notice in criminal law as a paradigm for analyzing the role of not |
|
19 |
+...AND... |
|
20 |
+ attach. In such cases, qualified immunity's notice inquiry-whether the law was clear-acts as a proxy for fault. |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+ |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+==Contention Two: Qualified Immunity has been an ignorant excuse in many instances, and we can see this in the case of Leija and Sheenah. == |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+ |
|
28 |
+ |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+A) QI was claimed wrongly in the case of Mullenix V Leijha. |
|
31 |
+ Liptak 15 { Adam, covers the United States Supreme Court and writes "Sidebar," a column on legal developments. |
|
32 |
+...AND... |
|
33 |
+/www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-police-officer-who-shot-man-in-car-chase.html } |
|
34 |
+ |
|
35 |
+ |
|
36 |
+ |
|
37 |
+ |
|
38 |
+====B ) The supreme court ruled in favor of the policemen who shoot Teresea Sheehan, a woman with (dis)abilities. ==== |
|
39 |
+Liptak 15 { ,Adam, covers the United States Supreme Court and writes "Sidebar," a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law "Supreme Court Sides With Police in a Shooting, and Against a State on Taxes," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/supreme-courts-rules-on-a-police-shooting-state-taxes-and-prisoners-lawsuits.html?_r=1®ister=facebook } |
|
40 |
+The court sided with two San Francisco police officers who in 2008 shot Teresa Sheehan, a mentally ill woman, wh |
|
41 |
+...AND... |
|
42 |
+San Francisco’s shift in its legal position as the case proceeded had made it impossible to address the question. |
|
43 |
+ |
|
44 |
+ |
|
45 |
+ |
|
46 |
+ |
|
47 |
+==Contention 3: Reduction of Qualified Immunity will allow for further elaboration of constitutional rights and clearly establish more laws. == |
|
48 |
+ |
|
49 |
+ |
|
50 |
+ |
|
51 |
+ |
|
52 |
+====Overall the defense of qualified immunity freezes constitutional elaboration==== |
|
53 |
+Matz et al 2011 {Joshua Matz graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2012. He was a law clerk to Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York., “Avoiding Permanent Limbo: Qualified Immunity and the Elaboration of Constitutional Rights from |
|
54 |
+Saucier to Camreta (and Beyond)” Pg 672-673} |
|
55 |
+ |
|
56 |
+ |
|
57 |
+ |
|
58 |
+ |
|
59 |
+====AND By reducing qualified immunity, we see an increase of constitutional elaboration. ==== |
|
60 |
+Beermann 2009 {Jack Michael , Professor of law at boston university,QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE, Pg 34} |
|
61 |
+The Supreme Court’s elimination of the subjective element of the qualified immunity defense in constitutional to |
|
62 |
+...AND... |
|
63 |
+no longer required to reach the constitutional merits whenever the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense. |